Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/internationalrelations
(II)
UNITED STATES-EUROPEAN RELATIONS: THE
VIEW FROM THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
OMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman GILMAN. I am delighted to call this hearing of the
Committee on International Relations to order.
Today, our Committee on International Relations meets to re-
ceive, for the very first time, statements by means of Digital Video
Conference in our newly renovated and equipped hearing room.
Our topic today is United States-European Relations: The View
from the European Parliament.
As I wrote our witnesses, the closeness of the relations between
the House and the EP makes it quite natural that we would call
on our friends in Europe to help us inaugurate our new facility.
We were not certain until quite recently just when this facility
would be ready. They have been working on it for several months.
We are very fortunate to have good friends who are willing to ap-
pear and discuss their views on such relatively short notice. Mel,
we thank you and Elmar and our other good colleagues for joining
us today.
We are very happy to have testimony from several eminent mem-
bers of the European Parliament: Mel Read, Chair of the Delega-
tion for Relations with the United States; Elmar Brok, Chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Carlos Westendorp, Chairman
of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and En-
ergy, and Karla Peijs, Vice Chairman of the Delegation for Rela-
tions with the United States. I will return to introduce you all as
we call on you.
I also want to emphasize that this hearing is not meant in any
way to supplant the work of the Translatlantic Legislator Dia-
logue. That work, of course, will continue under the agreed-upon
procedures on the basis of mutual decisions.
As we discussed in Brussels, I do hope that we will be able to
have a continuing series of discussions by video conference involv-
ing expert Members on each side to get into the issues in depth.
We will continue to have our formal meetings of the full delega-
tions, with the next one to occur in this room in June.
(1)
2
Europe and say hello, and I look forward to having substantive dis-
cussions on a regular basis. We all take occasional trips back and
forth, but I think this will actually help us in that relationship, and
I welcome this opportunity.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. It is good to have
Mr. Gejdenson part of our exchange with our European colleagues.
Now I would like to call on our Vice Chairman, Mr. Bereuter, the
gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Good morning, colleagues, nice to see you even at
a distance, Mr. Westendorp, Elmar Brok, (who is a long-time
friend) and Mrs. Read. I think it is particularly important that we
initiate even closer contacts between the European Parliament and
the U.S. Congress.
I just returned from Brussels this past weekend where we were
having the Standing Committee of the NATO Parliamentary As-
sembly and, Elmar, you might like to know that we spent quite a
bit of time talking about your proposal in conjunction with NATO
Interpartiamentary Exchange President Javier Ruperez (Spain), to
tighten the relationship and dialogue between the European Par-
liament and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
It is very difficult to have actual reciprocity between the two bod-
ies in a very specific sense, but I think your proposal was generally
very well received. As a matter of fact, I suggested a few additional
ways that we think we could provide you with more information
about the military capacity of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
We know that individually you have a substantial knowledge
about that area, but since the European Union is proposing that
the ESBI, now SBP, will be within the European Union, it seems
that our understanding should be particularly well developed in
that area.
I suggested that Members of the European Parliament should
also have several slots on our annual military tour, as well as one
on our defense subcommittees annual visit to the United States
where they visit with people at the Pentagon, the other Executive
agencies related to defense, and then some of our major installa-
tions.
In addition to having you there as associate members for the
most part in our future meetings, particularly the spring and the
fall major meetings of the Parliamentary Assembly, this might help
build a better bridge of understanding.
As I was looking at newspapers in Europe this past weekend, I
saw, for example, in the Herald Tribune, an article about growing
anti-Americanism in Europe, especially in Franceno surprise to
usand also concern among the six European NATO members who
are not members of the European Union. Of course, developing the
linkages between the EU, including the European Parliament, and
the NATO organization, including the Parliamentary Assembly, I
think is crucial if, in fact, the ESDP is to be developed fully as a
European pillar.
I might also say one other thing. My biggest fear of all is that
growing trade antagonisms between the European Union and Can-
ada and the United States on the other hand may spill over and
effect the ability of the West through NATO to defend its interests
4
and to take action out of area to deal with crises that may occur
near the NATO 19.
I also am incrediblyI dont know if I should use the word im-
pressedbut aware of the fact that the European Union has
moved so far into the area of effecting the lives of the member na-
tions population. I think that is very positive in terms of building
a strong Europe, and we are, I think as you know, bipartisanly
supportive of the growth of European institutions as epitomized by
the European Union and the European Parliament. But I also see
it going on a very divergent track from what is happening in the
United States. There is a greater tolerance for regulation on a
multi-national sense in Europe today than there would be on na-
tional regulation of American citizens.
We are deregulating. We are reducing the role of government in
the lives of our citizens. I am impressed with the 20,000 to 30,000
people who work in your European Union bureaucracy and the
willingness of Europeans to dedicate more and more of those deci-
sions to the European Union. I am not criticalthat is a European
decisionbut I do think now we do have divergence in our ap-
proach to dealing with constituents. We therefore need to build un-
derstanding between the European Parliament and the Congress of
the United States to avoid deep frictions that could divide our peo-
ples.
Thank you very much for being such a willing group of interlocu-
tors on so many issues, and we look forward to this dialogue today.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Doug Bereuter. We are pleased to
be joined by another one of our Subcommittee Chairmen, Chris
Smith, who is Chairman of our Subcommittee on International Op-
erations and Human Rights. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Regrettably, I
have a press conference over the AFLCIO on the WTO and MFN.
But let me just say this is a very important hearing. I am certainly
glad that you are conducting it. You and Mr. Bereuter, I think, are
to be commended for your leadership on European issues through-
out the many years, and I look forward to looking at the testimony
at the conclusion of the day. I yield back the balance.
Chairman GILMAN. I know you have a prior commitment, but I
hope you can return shortly.
Let me note that there is a Democratic Conference right now,
and so our Minority Members will be joining us along the way.
Our first speaker is Mrs. Mel Read. As I noted before, she is
Chairwoman of the EPs Delegation for Relations with the U.S. Mel
is a leader of the Socialist Group in Parliament, and represents a
constituency in Nottingham and Leicestershire, northwest England.
I informed my colleagues in January that you are bound to fail if
you try to rattle Mrs. Read because she is a beekeeper by avoca-
tion. She chaired our last meetings and did a great job at keeping
us on track and on schedule. I very much appreciate Mels willing-
ness to share her views with us. Chairwoman Read, please proceed,
and if you have a statement to submit for the record or want to
e-mail it on to us, we will be pleased to make it part of the record.
Please proceed.
5
Mrs. READ. Mr. Gilman, thank you very much, indeed. Good
afternoon to all of your colleagues there in Washington. We bring
you greetings from the U.S. Delegation here in the Parliament and,
of course, from the Parliament itself, and we are in Strasbourg, the
home of the European Parliament.
My remarks will be fairly brief then, they are by way of introduc-
tion to my two prestigious colleagues, but I did want to say a few
words very briefly about the Trans-Atlantic Legislatures dialogue.
As you know, both you and I and, indeed, our two Delegations,
set great store by this dialogue, and I think your introduction, par-
ticularly over the trade areas, are going to form the basis of our
discussion hopefully in May and June.
We are on course here with the practical and political arrange-
ments, and I anticipate that we will have two TLD video conference
link dialogues in May, and I very much hope another one in June,
although we do understand that elections in the U.S.A. may make
this more difficult.
Our Delegation meets tomorrow, and we will be finalizing our
own suggestions about our joint Delegation in Washington, in June,
where we will have the opportunity, I think, to review how well the
TLD has gone in the meantime.
But then, if I may, I would like to introduce you properly to my
two colleagues here, both of whom you have mentioned. First is Mr.
Elmar Brok, who I know is a long-time personal friend of yours
and, of course, very well known to many of your colleagues. Mr.
Brok is Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee here in the Euro-
pean Parliament and, if I may, I will ask him to make a contribu-
tion, his own comments for the record. Mr. Brok, if you would like
to contribute.
Mr. BROK. Thank you. Thank you, Ben, for your questions and
also what Mr. Bereuter has said about the concerns of our six non-
European Union NATO countries. I think it is an important ques-
tion which we have to take seriously.
When we develop our European Security Defense Policy, we must
ensure that we do not create divisions within NATO because we be-
lieve that NATO will be for a very long time the body for the collec-
tive defense of Europe, and there is no dispute about it at all. What
we want to develop is not to weaken this role of NATO, but to
strengthen European possibilities and our way of burdensharing.
As you know, we are on the stage of developing the European
Union in this Intergovernmental Conference in order to prepare the
European Union for enlargement, and the enlargement process is
one of our most important cases to broaden the basis for peace,
freedom and stability in Europe. The more countries we are able
to take into the European Union, the broader the space for stability
in Europe and that is in our common interest.
This is our main purpose of security policy, but security policy
is not the only reason for enlargement, but an important part of
it. The more countries who join us in this processand I think the
possibility that the first countries, especially the three central Eu-
ropean NATO countriesHungary, Czech Republic, and Poland
has a chance to join around 2003 the European Union, the NATO
nations are in a good way.
6
views with regard to the direction in which they were going on the
new defense posture.
Mel, would you like to proceed?
Mrs. READ. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Can I intro-
duce to colleagues now, Mr. Carlos Westendorp, who is the Chair
of the Industry and Trade Committee, also a Member of the U.S.
Delegation, as is Mr. Brok. Mr. Westendorp.
Chairman GILMAN. Welcome.
Mr. WESTENDORP. Hello, colleagues and dear friends. I think are
using for the first time a very good device which is going to allow
us to deal with many issues that we dealt with in our last meeting
in Brussels but, unfortunately, we have no time to deepen the anal-
ysis of each item. So, I think with this device we can discuss and
on many occasions prevent, diffuse possible contentious issues be-
tween United States and Europe.
We are together closely monitoring the evolution of the WTO con-
versations in Geneva. We are also dealing with the so-called left-
overs of Marrakesch, but at the same time we have to prepare the
new round whenever the moment is right. We are, in the Par-
liament, not going to have elections, but we understand that you
are going to have elections, and this is a more difficult situation
perhaps to come to definitive arrangements. But, anyhow, we have
taken very important initiatives by writing a joint letter to our Ad-
ministrations, respective Administrations, in order to provide us
with data about agriculture in order to see the facts before we start
quarreling about how the situation in our respective agricultures
are. We may discover very interesting things about that.
We are following very closely your negotiations with China and
our negotiator is doing that. We believe that the tension between
the continent and Taiwan must be diffused. You are doing a lot,
but I believe that an agreement with China and the WTO is a step
in the right direction. But at the same time, I share with you your
concerns about the situation of human rights in China, so this is
something that the European Parliament feels very strongly about,
and we are going to see how our other bodies are behaving in the
United Nations bodies because what you have told us, it goes, I
think, in the opposite direction of what the European Parliament
would like.
As far as the anti-Americanism you are feeling, I dont think you
should be very much concerned about that because sometimes it is
an expression of the defense of cultural identities which is some-
thing that, in my opinion, is a nonstarter because we are dressing
like the Americans. We are eating the same as the Americans. We
are speaking all English. So you need not worry about that.
But I shall tell you that in the last Lisbon Summit, what we
have done is just to constitute what we call Europe.com, that is to
say we are following your direction, your success in the new soci-
ety, the new information society, ecommerce, et cetera. So, you see,
you are still our example to follow on many issues. Thank you.
Mrs. READ. Thank you very much, Carlos. Thank you.
I am looking to you, Ben. Those are our two contributions.
Chairman GILMAN. We thank you for the contributions, and we
are off to a good start, and we welcome Congressman Brad Sher-
8
negotiators, and both sides know very well each others positions,
so there is, let us say, common views on many issues. Of course,
there are differences of interest in the United States and in Europe
about different items, but it doesnt preventthis is the second
conclusionthat the negotiations are being very difficult, but they
are ongoing satisfactorily. What Lamy has done is to come here to
see how the Member States feel about these conversations, the re-
sults of these conversations.
He didnt tell us that he is under any pressure from any Member
State about going further than the United States. What we think
in the European Union in general, it is that an agreement with
China is a very important thing because to have China in is much
better than to have China out. Of course, for China to submit to
the disciplines of the WTO would be a major step in the right direc-
tionthat is to say, to have China as a reliable partner.
So, we are not just looking at what the Congress is going to do,
but we are just negotiating in good faith and with the intention of
finishing these negotiations when they are right.
Mrs. READ. Thank you, Carlos.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, can I move on to the Balkans, or do you want to
go to our colleague, Mr. Sherman, first?
Chairman GILMAN. Go ahead.
Mr. BEREUTER. I would tell you a little bit of what has happened
here lately with respect to American participation in the Balkans,
in Bosnia, and, particularly, in Kosovo.
I led a delegation of about 12 members of the House Delegation
to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly to Kosovo in mid-February,
and, frankly, I was very concerned about the level of ethnic cleans-
ing, the violence that still is taking place and the lack of any kind
of judicial system. Civil government in general is just absent, and
there is tremendous pressure on ethnic minoritiesthe Serbs in
Kosovo and right across the border, the Albanian ethnics in that
part of Serbia.
Shortly thereafter, approximately 10 days ago, the House of Rep-
resentatives, as a part of debate on a supplemental appropriation
bill, had a burdensharing amendment offered by a bipartisan group
of Members, including the Chairman of the House Budget Com-
mittee. It was based upon similar legislation proposed by Senator
John Warner of Virginia.
Basically it attempted to measure how the European countries,
including the EU countries, were doing in meeting their commit-
ments for civil, military, police assistance and for efforts generally
within Kosovo. Different percentages for each of those several cat-
egories would serve as the miasarements.
The concern that exists in this countryrightly or wronglythat
the Europeans are not meeting their commitments particularly
with regard to the International Police Force to Kosovo, thereby
causing additional burdens on the military forces from all of our
countries that are participating in Kosovo.
That amendment received approximately 45 percent of the vote
in the House. It did not pass, but it had strong bipartisan commit-
ment. While I did not support it, I could understand that, in fact,
our colleagues and the American people want to know, first, that
12
What he needs is full power and full support. I agree with you
that the European Union should give him much more support.
When I was in Bosnia, I worked there for 2 years having the full
support of the United States on the one hand, and the European
Union on the other hand. We had a lot of problems, for instance,
the problem of the police, but we managed to have all the police-
men we needed. We also had the convention which was the mobile
troops in order to prevent riots.
Now I understand that there are few policemen, around 2,000,
and they will need many more of them. I totally agree with you,
and we are pressing ahead from the European Parliament in order
to provide Kouchner with the police and with the assistance, finan-
cial assistance, that he needs.
Mrs. READ. Thank you very much, Carlos.
Ben, can I invite Karla Peijs to say a few words to your col-
leagues?
Chairman GILMAN. Yes, please. Welcome, Karla.
Ms. PEIJS. Ben, in the last meeting that we had in Brussels,
there were a few things that we wanted your attention for the
early warning system. We made progress on our side on a few
issues, one of these is the Podrie Kosmetica ProductsI should
speak English, of courseand there is a decision taken by the
Commission to send a proposal for a directive to the Parliament
and the Council, and that is really an important thing in the rela-
tionship between you and us. This is an early warning that is com-
ing up that the Parliament will think about it and get it not only
an opinion but decision together with the Council, and maybe in
the next meeting that we have together we should talk about that.
The second thing is the hushkit that the Parliament together
with the European Commission agreed about the ruling, and that
the ruling really should go into effect on the 4th of May of this
year.
So, I think that the sense of the Council of all the members of
the member states, that you can go on in the negotiations with
United States, the way we did until now. So, maybe also this is a
thing that we have to get on the agenda all over again in our June
meeting.
Mrs. READ. Thank you, Karla.
Carlos has to leave us now. Carlos has another meeting to go to,
if he could just say goodbye to you.
Chairman GILMAN. Carlos, thank you for being there. Please, let
us try to find some solutions to our trade problems along the way,
they have been a real thorn in our sides, and whatever we can do
by working together, Carlos.
Mr. WESTENDORP. Yes, absolutely. I am entirely at your disposal.
Thank you very much for this opportunity. I hope to see you soon.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you for taking part in our first oppor-
tunity to use our new
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will apologize in ad-
vance if some of my comments are a bit intemperate, but my col-
league from California, Dana Rohrbacher, is not here, and I feel I
must make up for his absence.
14
President, and I dont support him for President, but the idea that
the United States would have to maintain for a generation or
longer peacekeeping forces in the Balkans while at the same time
having the fighting responsibility in the Gulf, in Korea, and in
many other places around the world is apparently acceptable to our
State Department, it wont be acceptable to our people.
So, yes, indeed, there is a concern I have for a European dedica-
tion to human rights and the common values that seems to stop
just as soon as business interests are involved, or the expenditure
of governmental funds are involved. I would certainly like to see a
Europe that expects us to join hands with Europe on Kosovo, to
join hands with us on dealing with Iran.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. I would like to rec-
ognize, Mel, a new Member who has joined us on our panel today,
Dr. John Cooksey, a Republican from Louisiana, who serves also
not only on our International Relations Committee, but also on our
Agriculture and Transportation Committees. Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is great to be here,
and be here in this apparently landmark, first-time virtual reality
transatlantic communication. I love Strasbourg, it is a great city,
and love Europe.
I would like to touch on a couple of areas that are related to my
Committees. I just left an Agriculture Committee meeting, and last
year when I was over there, I actually was on my way back from
a trip visiting military installations, we stopped in Ireland one
night and we refueled and left the next morning, but I read the
Sunday morning paper, and there was a lot of information about
the genetically modified organisms. As a physician who is trained
in the scientific method, I felt like this was something that came
out of the National Inquirer. You may not be familiar with the na-
tional Inquirer, but I am sure you have some comparable publica-
tions over there, but I feel like there is a lot of misinformation
there, and I feel like a lot of times it is important for those of us
that are in leadership government positions to bring the truth out
and to tell the people that the world really is not flat, and tell the
people that we are in global markets and that we are moving into
some exciting times in this 21st century.
Another area that I would like to talk about is basically about
the hushkits. My wife and I were over for a wedding near Toulouse
last year and I visited the Air Bus factory. I am a pilot, still fly
some, through probably no one is safe when I am flying, but I do
fly occasionally still, in a small plane, a Baron, but you have a
wonderful airplane; the Airbus is a great airplane that can compete
with anything that is built anywhere in the world. I dont feel that
it is necessary for the EU to hide behind this hushkit problem.
Point in case, Monday night I flew back from my home district, and
flew from Louisiana to Memphis. There was a problem with the ap-
proach radar here at Reagan National Airport, so just before we
took off at 8:20, the pilot said, We wont be able to leave because
the approach radar is off, but he said, it doesnt matter, we will
be able to land at Reagan National Airport even if it is 2 oclock
in the morning because we are flying an Air Bus and it meets all
of the sound requirements. Had we been on another plane that did
not, we would not have been able to do it.
17